Skip to main content

View Diary: Limbaugh Is Losing! With Each Hateful Word, More Sponsors Leave. (300 Left Last Month) Total: 2,500+ (205 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what regulations is he breaking? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban, phonegery, elwior, shmuelman, native

    could you explain?

    www.tapestryofbronze.com

    by chloris creator on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 06:59:31 PM PST

    •  None. Why he's still on the air (35+ / 0-)

      What he's doing wrong is putting his sponsors between their consumers and his hate-filled platform. Since their ads are to attract customers, sponsor flight says his listeners aren't compensating for the new folks they're losing.

      It's a violation of smart promotion and marketing. Then again, Limbaugh's never been accused of being too smart.

    •  Here is one article re: Limbaugh FCC offenses (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKSinSA, elwior, Rogneid, Smoh

      from Tim Graham/Huffington Post

      http://newsbusters.org/...

      "When faced with darkness, be the light. Remembering Richard Myers"

      by Leslie Salzillo on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 07:30:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apologies. Wrong Link - (9+ / 0-)


        Here's is Sarah O'Leary's article in Huffington Post. What I posted previously is Tim Graham and his rightwing twisted take on the matter.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        "When faced with darkness, be the light. Remembering Richard Myers"

        by Leslie Salzillo on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 07:41:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sarah O'Leary has brewed a cup of weak tea. (8+ / 0-)

          Sarah O'Leary may be an "Award-winning creative marketer, author and 'big idea' consultant," but she is all wet when it comes to FCC Enforcement matters.

          There is a lot of daylight between Limbaugh's rant against Sandra Fluke and what Howard Stern did to trigger the fines that drove him off terrestrial radio and onto satellite radio.

          The main difference is that Stern was very graphic in the physical descriptions, very detailed, and going on for quite some time as to who did what to whom.  Limbaugh has cleverly toed the FCC line.

          Misogynistic and racist rants, repulsive as they surely are, are not indecent, at least not according to how the FCC views indecency.

          I have some basis for writing the above.  I know more than the average Joe or Josie about this field.  I have defended licensees against charges brought against them by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, including indecency charges.

          Limbaugh's "product" is so vile, in so many ways, that it saddens me that he attracts any sort of audience at all.  But it seems like there is a market for just about anything.

          •  How has Stern done on sat? Will Rush go there too? (3+ / 0-)

            Has Howard Stern's audience diminished since he has gone to satellite? Do you think Limbaugh will go there too, when he is eventually pushed off terrestrial radio?

            I wonder if Rush will be unattractive to satellite, because he'll have no sponsors left by then!

            •  I believe that Stern's audience on satellite (5+ / 0-)

              has been significantly smaller than what his audience was when he was in his heyday on terrestrial broadcast radio.

              Whether Rush has a future in outer space, time will tell.  I chuckle at the mental image of him suited up and sent on a one-way trip, like poor Laika, broadcasting from space until the air ran out, or until the orbit decayed.

            •  It's a different dynamic (6+ / 0-)

              Stern's audience on Satellite is a paid audience, they pay for the content and they can chose Stern ala carte - for an extra fee.   While his audience is "smaller" it's worth money.

              Frankly, as someone who listens to Stern now and again, he can be graphic and offensive and there are moments I get infuriated.. but as far as content, there are also moments here that have real merit, interviews where real things get discussed, etc.

              Plus, I tend to hold comedians to a much different standard then those who put up fake news.

              Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

              by Chris Reeves on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:17:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Limbaugh doesn't strike me as the (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gustogirl, elwior, Rashaverak

            kind of entertainer who studies rules and regulations and has, "cleverly toed the FCC line."

            The Sandra Fluke rant was offensive on many levels and yet he continued the rant unabated.  He must have gotten the "green light" from someone, right?

            Limbaugh's schtick hasn't changed much so either the FCC has given him a pass or doesn't regulate at all.

            When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

            by msmacgyver on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:44:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He doesn't have to study the rules. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              msmacgyver, elwior

              There are paid experts who do that for him, for Premier, and for Clear Channel.

              •  OK, so we can assume that the (0+ / 0-)

                Sandra Fluke rant didn't go beyond acceptable standards, right?

                When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

                by msmacgyver on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 01:08:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It did not violate the FCC's indecency standards. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  msmacgyver

                  It was loathsome.  It was despicable.  It was libelous.  However, it was not actionably indecent, at least not in the way that the FCC defines indecency.

                  •  Link to and excerpt from FCC Guidelines (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Leslie Salzillo

                    http://www.fcc.gov/...

                    Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

                    Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:
                    •An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
                    •The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
                    •The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

                    When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

                    by msmacgyver on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:26:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Limbaugh's diatribe was not obscene. (0+ / 0-)

                      Neither was it even indecent, not in the FCC sense.  It was not graphic enough to rise to the level of indecency, in the FCC sense of indecency.  And if it did not rise to the level of indecency, which it did not, it surely could not have been obscene.  Obscenity is to indecency as whiskey is to beer.

                      I share your outrage, but Limbaugh's diatribe simply was not actionably indecent, and neither was it actionably obscene.

                  •  FCC Guidelines (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Leslie Salzillo

                    http://www.fcc.gov/...

                    Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

                    Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

                    An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

                    The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

                    The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

                    When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

                    by msmacgyver on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:30:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Excellent. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      msmacgyver

                      Thank you for posting the FCC guidelines.

                      I think he may have gotten by on the third point, as the material was political and valuable to some at the time. In the long run - valuable to none. He did himself, his party, talk radio, and mainstream media a disservice, as well as Sandra Fluke.

                      "When faced with darkness, be the light. Remembering Richard Myers"

                      by Leslie Salzillo on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 09:24:46 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Posted twice, as it turned out :) (0+ / 0-)

                        The first time I got an error message, so...

                        I don't know how he could have gotten past all three with the Sandra Fluke rant but apparently the FCC doesn't enforce much beyond the most blatant offenses.

                        I expect that censorship of any kind is a very tricky issue.

                        When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

                        by msmacgyver on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 06:40:52 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  We should thank Rush for his Sandra Fluke (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            iandhr, elwior, Rashaverak, jabney

            rant. His continual, endless and endlessly vile rants are moving the Republican party into ever increasing radical and radically unpopular positions. He is killing the Party with his voter alienation drive.
            To say he should be censured / censored by a government bureaucracy is a very short term, and a dangerous kind of thinking. Remember, you're next.
            The Stop Rush drive is an incredibly successful response and the kind of grass roots action that will put him out of business, or drain the money from the puppeteers who are driving the right-wing noise machine.  It is just a matter of time when he will be too much of a liability for them to support.

            "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

            by shmuelman on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:54:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Limbaugh isn't subject to most FCC regulations (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Odysseus, xynz, elwior

      He doesn't own any stations nor holds any FCC licenses.

      The stations that carry him hold licenses, and are therefore responsible for what they put on the air, including syndicated shows such as Limbaugh's. If they violate FCC rules, they can be fined, and in extreme cases their licenses can be taken away.

      However, the FCC does not generally regulate program content, with one or two exceptions such as obscenity and indecency.

      Even the former Fairness Doctrine could not have been used to take Limbaugh off the air. The Doctrine only required that stations make airtime available for opposing viewpoints (a regulation that I would heartily applaud, by the way).

      •  Air talent are now subject to indecency fines, (5+ / 0-)

        in addition to licensees, but what Limbaugh has broadcast is not actionably indecent.  Sandra Fluke has a cause of action in libel, but there are not grounds for enforcement action by the FCC.

      •  sadly, the Fairness Doctrine would have prevented (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        michaelhenderson, elwior, NoMoreLies

        the last 25 years of progressive/liberal failure -IMO that was reagan's biggest legacy- enabling the most successful attack on american democracy in recent time. it has been instrumental in derailing almost every major reform attempts.

         the RW radio monopoly is so successful  as a propaganda tool creating their own reality merely because with the lack of the FD they've been able to insulate large segments of the population from political talk radio alternatives/competition while driving and working.

        even if they own the stations and control most of the content they still would have had to worry about challenge on their own turf- political talk radio.

        certainty sells and the FD would have prevented the GOP and their think tanks from creating the bubble of royal unchallenged certitude around blowhards like  limbaugh and hannity and the hundreds of ignorant lying local wannabes.

        that regulation would have kept most of the carnival barkers in the swamps and used car lots, on a few stations here and there rather than 600 for limbaugh and the 500 for hannity, etc.

        all they need is for someone to get up and yell back 'in their face' where everyone can see it and that's what the FD did to some degree- instead now they have call screeners and paid callers and soapboxes endorsed by our most popular sports teams.

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:45:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton and Obama both... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zinger99, DSPS owl

          ...could have restored the Fairness Doctrine but chose not to. Both were subsequently pummeled in the midterm elections of 1994 and 2010, respectively.

          I'm no longer sure anyone at the top of the Democratic Party truly wants to win; it may be more like Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia in 1984; each side wins a few battles, but the war goes on forever, and the brunt is born by the common people.

          Our political system is broken.

          •  the same mechanism that makes an FD necessary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JBraden

            makes it impossible to reinstate.

            that's one of those battles for obama that some would conclude they couldn't win and the others would conclude would be about nothing because most liberals think talk radio is no big deal- - but no two words get more immediate reaction from the right.

            This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

            by certainot on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 04:20:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  What regs is he breaking? Safe Harbor for 1: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leslie Salzillo, Smoh, elwior

      What makes material obscene? Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

      What makes material indecent? Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.

      Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. In each case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the material is patently offensive. http://www.fcc.gov/... http://transition.fcc.gov/...  

      •  Uh no. Not even close. (0+ / 0-)

        He's not breaking that either. He's not using graphic descriptions in any form. Slut and whore are not words that will get you fined. Safe Harbor doesn't fit here.

        You may not like what he says but that doesn't mean he's breaking FCC rules. Plus, the FCC is overwhelmed at their enforcement division. They have trouble enforcing real rule violators and take years to fine violators after the fact. Rush, even as vile as he is, is nowhere on their radar.

    •  I looked back over the article again (5+ / 0-)

      and I saw no references at all to regulations or the FCC.

      The protest seems to be based on values other than legality.

      So this question is pretty much a red herring.

      "Woe to those who make unjust laws,
    to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights
    and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, 
making widows their prey
    and robbing the fatherless."

      by Snarky McAngus on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:05:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site